This is a supremely uninformed and completely wrong statement. The f/2.8 lens achieves a reproduction ratio of 1:8.3 at a shortest focus distance of 1.4m. The new lens achieves a repro-ratio of 1:3.6 (not 1.36x !!), at a shortest focus distance of 1.0m. A little math now shows that the new lens has virtually no focusbreathing at all.

CJ

Filter size is weird. It should have been 72mm like the rest of newer pro lens. This force us to buy a different set of filters…

Roy S.

But that may increase the weight.

Bret M

What lenses use 72mm filters? the only one I ever had was a Canon 15-85mm

I think you mean 77mm, but that would make it far larger. If it matters that much, get a 67 to 77mm step up ring… though that may look comical on the front of the lens.

Calibrator

AFAIK the 18-200 VR/VR2 has a 72 mm filter thread and it’s quite popular.
How many of those are equipped with a filter is a different matter.

Jon

…and how many owners of the 18-200 do you think will be purchasing this lens?

I couldn’t care less about the filter size – I just found the post about the 18-200 to be ridiculous

I Like

Pls don’t remind me of the 18-200. I bought this lens together with the D7000 and it was just HORRIBLE: feels very unbalanced, especially when zoomed out to 200, and the IQ varies a lot between every single zoom/aperture combination. After only few weeks I had to replace it with the 24-120/4 and the Tokina 12-24/4 for the sake of my nerves. Both are SUPERB lenses BTW.

Now this baby here, the 70-200/4, seems to be the perfect companion for my new D600. After switching to it from D7000 my 24-120 feels now like…ehm…just a 24-120 :-). Although I’m very happy with the D600 and the 24-120 is definitely more useful on it as on the D7000, I surely miss the 1.5x “crop” factor the D7000 gave me on the long end of the 24-120. And because I had very good luck with the 24-120/4 and the 16-35/4 (replacement for the Tokina), I’ll pre-order the 70-200/4 as soon as Amazon.de allows that for it. Can’t wait…

http://CraigEisenberg.com Craig

The 180mm f/2.8 uses 72mm also.

Norton

If it’s larger than 67mm, there will be comparison against Canon 70-200 F4 L, which is also 67mm.

As a full-time newspaper photog, I’m really excited about this lens as I shoot a lot of video jobs and the VR looks really nice.

PK

my AF 135 f2, 28 f1.4, 24-120 zoom all have 72mm
many old manual lenses use 72mm filters, or 52mm not much in between

http://photographnic.com/ Nic

I should have clarified, it seems 67mm is the newer prosumer lenses standard.

I Like

Video jobs for a newspaper? I’m getting too old…

“it seems 67mm is the newer prosumer lenses standard.”

Interesting observation! I didn’t notice that before but it seems that you are right. The new Nikon lenses like the 28/1.8, the 85/1.8, the 24-85 and now the 70-200/4 do use 67mm filters indeed. But as long as the IQ and build quality are fine, I don’t mind having smaller and compacter lenses at all.

http://SpaceShuttleEndeavor Nic

Yeah, I shoot a lot of video projects and I used the 16-35 VR hand-held a bunch for video, because it worked well and the image wasn’t shaky. This is why the 70-200 is attractive.

The 28 f/1.8 and the 85 f/1.8 are stupidly sharp too, but the build quality lacks a bit. Those the price is right.

enesunkie

Add to that the 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR.

mrbolano

Can someone explain to me who this lens is for? Isn’t the F4 a deal breaker for most pros?

karl

1. for amateurs who could never justify spending $2400 on a heavy 70-200 f2.8
2. for anyone who wants a telephoto lens that is a) “relatively fast”, b) not heavy, c) doesn’t cost a fortune, and d) is not a cheap plastic consumer lens

P.

Karl,

I agree, and I would add a point. It would also be a choice for those who already own the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR in either version.

It has to do with the weight, and perhaps even the image quality, although I’ll be able to speak about this only once we begin to get a sense of what the new lens is like. I have the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the newly-released lens is something I too would consider. It is not uncommon for me to sometimes leave the 2.8 lenses behind simply because of weight consideration.

I should add a more general comment. Those who spend considerably time on photography (either because it is a source of income, enjoyment, or professional advancement) are not interested in lenses only because they cover a particular focal length or range, as in the case of zoom lenses. Lens inventories are more than a continuum of focal lengths with gaps that need to be eliminated. Pictorial qualities are equally important. Particular focal lengths are needed and having a lens inventory where the increments are covered well (and I am, of course, thinking mostly about primes here) is important. When one needs a 400mm no other lens will do. However, different versions of the same focal length can produce different “looks” and there are time when one has to select one version. What may appear to be focal length duplication on the surface is simply a more complex inventory.

Justin

I appreciate this comment P. and to that I would add, the optical qualities of lenses matter greatly. Newer lenses with improved flair, higher contrast, less distortion, or fewer lateral chromatic aberrations for example are all good reasons to consider different lens designs.

Shooting full frame with a 70-200 even at f/4 can produce quite dramatic subject/background isolation.

Justin

I had a comment in between those two ideas that made them less of a non sequitur. In any case there should be plenty of reasons to pick up this lens for all types of shooters should Nikon happen to nail the optical characteristics.

j-g-faustus

For the “enthusiast” segment – those who want to upgrade from a variable aperture kit zoom, but aren’t quite willing to deal with the cost and weight of the “pro” lenses.
Or for pros who are willing to sacrifice a stop in return for lower weight.

http://photographnic.com/ Nic

Actually no.

A lot of us who shoot daytime sports prefer f/4 lens as they’re lighter and just as sharp. I’m a full-time photog in California who shoots a lot of sports and even my f/2.8 glass I don’t shoot wide-open.

I shoot a bunch of golf at Pebble Beach and the f/4 is a nice lens to carry around as golf is a fairly “slow” sport. The 16-35 f/4 was in my bag for a while too and the VR was fantastic for slow shutter speed stuff.

RoyL

f4 is a deal breaker for anyone who shoots low light at events. A used f2.8 VR1 would not cost much more. But the price is less than I thought it would be for this lens. I’m sure some people will buy it.

Earle

The point was to release an F4 lens for those who need/prefer it. People who need the 70-200 2.8 to shoot wide open will always gravitate to that. But that’s not the point. Nikon aimed this at people who value weight over 2.8.

Justin

even the 2.8 is often not fast enough when shooting low light events where there is both action and low light (most events have action, esp if you are trying to capture candid moments).

In these situations as so many working pro know, useable iso 3200 and 6400 become important and f/2 and f/1.8 where the lens is sharper than wide open at 1.4 become optimum.

Mike

There is a big gap between the $500 70-300 VR and the $2400 70-200 vRII. The f/4 version tries to fit inbetween. Pros who need the 2.8 version will already have it or will get it. But for studio pros that shoot f/8+, this is the better choice.

I Like

” Isn’t the F4 a deal breaker for most pros?”

Definitely not! I work as a Make-up Artist a lot with fashion & beauty photographers in studio and till now I didn’t see anyone of them use apertures faster than 5.6. In fact most of the f&b work I’ve seen is shot with apertures between f8 – f11. DOF is not important at all when you have a white, grey or black sheet as background. But getting a sharp shot of the clothes and accessoires the model is wearing is a must in that branch.

Joe

Yes and No …

While it is true that F8 -F11 aperture are commonly used in studio shoots with strobes, the auto-focus system of most cameras would only work at F5.6 or less. Therefore, the auto-focus speed and accuracy should benefit from a lens with wider aperture in studio …. even when shooting at F8 with strobe.

D800 owner

Its cheaper. But will it be better than the 70-200mm F2.8 vrII? (Sharpness, color..) I don’t know.. I guess i go for the f2.8 one.

iamlucky13

It is very doubtful it will be sharper than the 70-200 F/2.8. It still should be pretty darn good, however. Might even match it at some aperture and focal length combinations.

Chrisgull

Actually, a f/2.8 zoom design is more demanding than a f/4 design. So everything else being equal, the f/4 design could be expected to perform better.

Now, of course everything else isn’t equal, so we’ll have to wait for critical reviews, but there is a good chance that the f/4 will be a better performer than the f/2.8.

iamlucky13

I believe it is more that F/2.8 is a more demanding design point than F/4 is.

Put both lenses at F/4, and I still suspect the F/2.8 model will come out ahead.

Zaphod

Less glass eq shorter path to get color separation on. With same quality of glass and design it should be one class better than 2.8. But do they want that? It is sadly not about pushing the technology. It’s about business. They need to have very high profit to accept lower sale on the 2.8 otherwise its bad.

softondemand

Why would you get the 2.8 over the 4?

1. You can take sharp images
2. You can take creamy images
3. You can use this in lowlight

Why Would you get the 4 over the 2.8?

1. You can take sharp images
2. You’re cannot financially afford the 2.8
3. You try to convince yourself that the 4 is a cheaper alternative to the 2.8, however in reality the 2.8 is superior in most aspects; therefore if you will regret that you should’ve saved a bit more for the 2.8

Earle

You left one out. You need to stand closer than 4.7 feet to your subject and fill the frame. Some people do, you know. The 70-200 2.8 will always be sharper at 2.8. But if the VR claims hold true, the F4 should be able to capture images at a lower iso for subjects where speed isn’t that critical.

Fabian

This is silly. I own the 70-200 f/2.8 VR1. I never shoot with it at f/2.8. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is not that much. The lens is huge and heavy. I have been wanting a 70-200 f/4 for over eight years! Meanwhile, Canon has had an f/4 version this whole time. I will buy the 70-200 f/4 and sell my 70-200 f/2.8. And I won’t have any regrets.

I Like

+1

Most people (well, at least NR commentators ) seem to think of the 70-200/f4 as the “economical” version of the /f2.8. But IMHO most buyers of this lens, including me, will get it for reasons that has nothing to do with budget at all!

ERik

The Weight in comparison with the f2.8 makes it interesting.
It would be interesting to see how good the AF actually works on a D800/D600/D4 with a 2x-teleconverter attached to it! If this is true, then it would be s sweet deal at the price!!!

desmo

+1

Cenk

Focus breathing?

fjfjjj

Fine, thank you!

Charlie Murphy

Who is this lens for? If you’re not a pro, then it’s probably for you. Anyyywayyy, this lens will be a great landscape/travel lens for those looking to save weight and size. I didn’t realize you needed 2.8 for sweeping landscapes or street photos. Hhmmm, maybe I’ll consider buying a 24/1.4 so that I can take sharp landscape shots at 1.4-2.0….or just always wide open. Read sarcasm here. Oh, and cocaine is a hell of a drug says Charlie Murphy

Big J

Says Rick James* (RIP)

Dan

Whatever happened to Nikon prices? Is 1000 the new 0? Why are all these lenses’ prices starting by default from 1000 and then add something? This should have been priced at max usd 1000-1100. It’s silly that in Europe it will arrive at eur 1400, which is a f***ing lot of money for what the obj. offers. No wonder all people in their senses (at least around here) stated they were gonna buy sh of the 2.8 version.

GQT

Nikon prices too expensive for you Dan? Nothing is cheap anymore. Better stick with point and shoot or older lenses if you want something cheap. This hobby or profession doesn’t speak low price tag anymore. Consider it as “fluctuation” just like what you pay for gasoline.

I Like

He? I think, the price is fair considering the constant f4 in whole zoom range and the technology inside. If you read the comments in the first post in NR regarding this lens, you’ll see that the people where expecting a much higher price. After all, this is a Gold Ring lens.

The good news is, there are alternatives for tight budgets!

heartyfisher

This is a really tempting lens! I think it will be perfect for me for my dx cameras.. smaller lighter and 67mm !! Been holding out for something in this range.. the F2.8’s are way too big. Almost got the sigma 50-150 f2.8 but it didnt have OS/VR the new 50-150 is just as big as the 70-200.. so this is a nice one.. !

Matt Taylor

I still think I’m going to wait and see what tamron delivers with their 2.8 VC before I choose which 70-200 I want.

their original 70-200 was a stunner optically, figners crossed this remains with upgraded autofocus – then I will be getting that, which is probably the same price as this new f/4 from Nikon.

Syran

Me too. I will wait and see the comparison against Tamron. however, given its weight, F4 is more pleasing for my all-day use.

Matt Taylor

I don’t really consider weight an issue – I’m happy carrying around a 70-200 2.8, but then again, im not an “all day, every day” pro

http://capturedbyflo.com Florent

This lens would have been interesting if it were much more compact than the 2.8 version. While being quite a bit lighter, it’s not that small (for what it is). The Tammy 70-300 f/4-5.6 while being slower is significantly smaller (and lighter) while providing 100mm more.
I’d have been interested in this lens in a more compact design, but as it stands and for the price they are asking, I’m not interested.

From Canonland

I think that you’re mistaken in thinking that the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD will even be playing in the same league as this new Nikkor. Try this comparison with the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS:

I never said they would play in the same league as far as IQ is concern. However, I still believe Nikon could have made the lens smaller than it actually is. I mentioned the Tammy for comparison purposes given it features 100mm more reach and VR.

I Like

Sorry but comparing the size of a */4-5.6 to a */4 is just silly. What comes next? Comparing the 18-200/3.5-5.6 to the 70-200/2.8?

Lets hope it’s not priced like the canon collar like the lens is. £125 for a collar is ridiculous.

Geoff_K

It should sell well at that price

Richard

OMG…nano coat, VR III, high quality zoom, gold ring for $1400? damn that’s cheap. If it’s sharp wide open at f/4 that’s a great deal.
I need to stop down my 2.8 sometimes anyways because the DOF gets too shallow..

Carsten

Same here, my VR I is a bit aged and not perfectly sharp at 2.8, so I find myself stopping it down more often than not.

If it is as good as my current at f/4, will show less fall-off than the VR I, I will switch

fjfjjj

OMG GOLD RING?!!!

boing wronkwell

NO!!!!! I want it in pink and to fit my new CX mount V2.

BenS

And this thing has the NANO coat and the gold ring too. wow ! I think nikon is showing who is the Boss with this release . I hope its IQ / performance is worthy of the gold ring / nano coat . This is a very tempting lens indeed !

Bens

oops, failed to see that someone has already commented what i wrote above. Sorry, i couldnot contain my excitement.

RenoRaines

Considering that some of the D800 bodies have left focusing issues and apparently some of the D600 bodies have dust issues, my faith in Nikon’s quality control has been shaken. Would it be prudent to wait a month or two and let others take their chances with the initial run of this lens?

Kenneth

That’s what I’m going to do. I will wait about 2 months. This is just to make sure that there won’t be a bug.

Justin

It’s always prudent to wait a bit. That said if you buy from a reputable dealer you can always return. And if you don’t return in the specified window you can send to Nikon for repair.

Jammiedodger

Hi all,

Just got an amazing deal at Calumet Drummond st London, and they have loads of hi end glass and bodies left.
Just picked up 3 SB800’s, 14-24, 24-70, and a 70-200 for £2800!!
All boxed and hardly used….Bargain

NoonWalker

So there is no more budget left for decent advertising this year ha?

Benny

Waiting for new 80-400.

AM

Crickets chirping……

RC

+1 LoL

Justin

That’s the lens I want above all right now. Then pick up a 800 5.6 before I retire in 30 years (gonna take awhile to save that kind of scratch) and I’ll be a happy dude.

david

would probably wait for the tamron new 70200f2.8 and compare before deciding on which to get.

It does not come with a tripod collar. This is $224 extra. That is a lot of money for something that probably should have been included in the first place.

desmo

many people thought this would be priced between $100 to$1800 originally–

so for the approx$300 difference step up to the plate and buy the collar-

this way those who don’t want or need it won’t have to pay for it

stop whining-

desmo

meant $1600 to $1800

Matt

So is that it for this year? Is Nikon finished? Kind of a slow year for lenses. Where my ultra-wide primes at?

jack

Where are your ultra-wide primes? People have been crying out for this lens since Canon released the original 70-200 F4 which was, and still is one of the best buys in glass. I say, about freakin’ time…

Camaman

Just 3cm shorter than f2.8
Bummer…

Hans

why does Nikon develop this lens while there is already the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II available??? I do not understand.

Nikonista

Don’t understand? => Don’t buy!

Dtx20

It was built to steal the thunder of the pregnanting tokina 70-200 f4.

Stew

Ha, true! where is this lens?!

Whisky

After the D800 debacle, Greta-gate, and Henry Posner’s lame attempts to mitigate B&H’s open ended pre-ordering for a limited supply item, I don’t think I’ll be pre-ordering anything again.

That said, $225 for a Nikon quality tripod collar will probably slow sales enough so there won’t be many back-orders to fill.

http://www.ralphconway.com Ralph Conway

Yes. to ask for this price for a 5$ is as stupid as Canons price is.
But its not needed anyway. You will not get tired to shoot this lens handhold and if you want or have to use a tripod you can mount your body. It will hold this lens without risk.

http://www.ralphconway.com Ralph Conway

Sorry, I wanted to say “5$ piece” of course

http://www.inmozartsfootsteps.com David in NC

Regarding the tripod collar, let’s see just how effective this collar is. Nikon’s tripod collar on the 300mm f/4 is quite poor, and Kirk makes one that is infinitely better for $160. Maybe this would not be an issue because of the smaller size of the new 70-200 f/4. Makes for interesting possibilities.

Justin

It is a lot for a tripod collar, but keep in mind the Canon version of this lens ships the same way. I shot with the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS for a year and never felt I needed a tripod collar. It adds weight and you will find that the Nikon f/4 will be so much smaller and lighter that the collar will be a non-issue.

Jorge Castro

I agree with you. $225.00 is too much for a tripod collar!

http://www.ralphconway.com Ralph Conway

I am pretty sure the IQ will be much better than the tamrons 70-300.
This lens looks like a black copy of Canons 70-200 4.0 L IS USM that belongs to the finest zooms and the group of finest lenses ever produced imo.

In fact the missing of a Nikon counterpart was one of the causes why I did not think about switching to Nikon. If you shoot a wedding docu for 8 or even more hours a day, you will learn to love a 70-200 4.0 at half weighht of its 2.8 counterpart without ANY restriction in IQ over the whole range and accept the lost one stop.

In adition to this todays cameras offer usable ISO 12k or even 25k. If this lens does fullfill my expectation, that it is par on with Canons 4.0 in IQ, too (next to size, weight, design and price) it will be sold as successful, too. And gives me a cause again to think about a D600.

The guys at B&H photo and Adorama will beg to differ, judging by the number of preorders they received in the last 24hrs, my friend.

This is likely to become one of the highest ever Nikon semi-pro lens seller.

Joseph

I hope everyone enjoys their plastic-fantastic. However, I personally have been getting spectacular images from an old 80-200mm f/4.5 AI lens on my D800E. I would bet I can get the same sharpness from it as I would this, and it cost me $75! For landscapes, I don’t need the speed, or worse, the weight of this or God-forbid the f/2.8 monster.

Plus, filter sizes ARE a consideration for people who are trying to optimize a kit. I’ve got a nice set of lenses all with 52mm filters – 20/4, 28/2, 50/1.2, 85/1.8 AI, and the 80-200/4.5. Can’t beat the weight, versatility, and IQ when shot properly!

Twaddler Belafonte

Autofocus is just a passing fad, anyhows. And supremely effective and useful IS technology? That shit’ll never catch on.

Joseph

Haha, whatever. I didn’t say I was shooting sports. For many users, AF isn’t necessary and VR even less so, unless you have really shaky hands.

I keep selling AF lenses and getting more MF glass. How about that 50/1.2?? Yeah, it’s awesome, who needs stinkin’ AF anyway? I focus it just fine. Faster than the AF probably could after some practice.

Ron Sherman

Stop twaddling, Twaddler. You don’t use much cameras these days do you?

Or do you happen to be one of those ‘let’s use manual focus in live-view for shooting sports’ camera bozos?

I have a 80-200 f/2.8 and I’m seriously tempted to sell it and buy this lens. I lose a stop but gain a fair bit in return. Up to 5 stops with VR, faster focus, and the ability to use any of the teleconverters. That seems like a very good trade in y books. They 70-200 f/2.8 was just too big a price gap for me as I don’t shoot that much on the tele end. This new lens is a different story.

RC

Get a used 70-200mm F2.8 VR for ~$1200

Ken Mockwell

+1
Oh yes!

I’ve actually done this 2 months ago, paid just a little more than the price you mention and it was practically mint.

Edubya

This is a fantastic addition to Nikon’s lineup. Our AF-S choices in this range have long been either variable aperture and plastic or the very large and expensive 2.8 zooms. This is the compromise people have been asking for.

That said, if this is too expensive for your taste, you can still buy the awesome 80-200mm f/4. No VR or auto focus, but it’s well-built and sweet to use. And I got an almost-pristine copy on ebay for $39.

http://viewsinfinitum.com/ Scott Thomas

Now…can Nikon update the 80-400VR, please!!! Sorry, I know this is a great new lens for people. Just would love to see the original VR lens get some love.

Big J

I honestly think there will be one of those fitted with the new VRIII system. Gonna be amazing that lens when it comes out in my opinion.

Justin

Yes, please. I’m thinking that this may actually be the opportunity for Nikon to begin to update it’s super telephoto line too.

They can drop the VRIII into the 800 5.6, then follow with updates for 300, 400, 500, 600. To match the Canon lenses they’ll need to reduce weight dramatically. They can do it.

Toli

I do not care about filter size is still cheaper for the price of the lens… Right?…. Look at a new Tokina 70-200 f4 and Tamron 70- 200 f2.8 have not available for pre-order yet… Good job Nik release its sooner.

Tex

I’m interested in this lens, having been tossing around either the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or the Nikon 80-200 2.8 af-d. But this has me intrigued regarding Nikon quality, NC and VR and it’d be in my budget. Hmmmm…

http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

Tempting, and the price is around where I expected it, close to the other f/4 zooms. this shows Nikon is going downmarket with FX at a much higher priority than going with Pro DX.

camguy

did anyone look at the lens hood in accessories on nikon’s site. It’s a flat style like the 80-200 not the petal style like the 70-200s. any idea why they’ve gone back to that design? i guess it’s a narrow enough field of view at 70 that the corners don’t vignette? in my mind that leaves room to extend the hood a bit further if they made it petal style. As far as i know, every AF-S zoom has had petal style aside from the exotic 200-400, which is narrow enough FOV it would never matter.

Drazen B

Canon released a similar flat-cut hood on their 70-200 f/4.
It’s not unheard off, but yeah it kind of cheapens the look for those who care about that.

RC

The “LOOK?” bahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!! I guess you won’t look pro using this lens!

Z

Ummm … there is a work-around solution if you wanna complete the poseur pro look …

For $15, you can get the tulip shaped HB-36 hood that fits on 67mm Nikon 70-300mm …

Andrew

+1

Drazen B

You seem to care more about the ‘look’ than others…did we hurt your feelings RC? Sorry, wasn’t the intention.

If you really care about the ‘look’ get a tulip shaped hood poster ‘Z’ mentions below.

Shy

Pass on this, 80-200 F2.8 cheaper and faster

RC

no VR = dealbreaker

Big J

And also lighter and chances are not soft wide open.

Per Laursen

After a few hours of handheld shooting with my 3000+ gram Sigma 120-300/2,8 OS ( 240-600/5,6) on the D800, arms and shoulders can feel overloaded. If the new 70-200/4 + TC20EIIIasf. (140-400/8) proves a great combo, it will make a great “travel light” alternative.

JimBob

This can’t possibly be a pro-level lens.

1. Most pros can afford something bigger. If you think you’re a pro, but can’t afford one, you’re not really a pro.
2. f4 is for losers who can’t afford 2.8 or have weak arms and can’t carry weight like a pro.
3. It looks cheap and many pros know that kills return clients when they see your inferior gear, regardless of the image quality.
4. The 70-200 VRII is the best zoom lens in existence and is double the image quality of Canon’s 70-200, because it is a Canon and this is a Nikon (which is always better). Nothing could ever match the 70-200 VRII, so why even try?
5. The Nikon 70-300 VR beats the hell out of the 70-200 f4 L IS, because it has 300mm and I once took a photo with it that looked good. This means the Canon version is crappy. Nikon should have learned this and avoided spending R&D on a f4 lens that is a failure before it was even made.
6. Everyone who uses a 70-200 uses it for portraits, and f4 bokeh is not pro enough compared to 2.8 bokeh. Anyone not using one for portraits is not a pro.
7. The lens hood isn’t pro looking at all. Brides will have a look of disgust when you shoot them with this crappy f4 lens.
8. This lens is for the wanna-be pro market for people who do free weddings and want to be pro-posers.

If it isn’t pro, it’s crap. Why can’t the rest of the world see how correct I am? Is it because I did not type my FACTS in BOLD? Now we have to wait longer to get any other update because the posers had to have their poser f4 lens? What a joke…

Z

Do you do … stand-up much?

Pablo Ricasso

That prescription medicine you’ve been taking isn’t working for you, get off it ASAP.

Andrew

LOL! Hahahaha – good one Pablo!

The world is trully full of idiots, what a dumba$$.

Ken Mockwell

Gee man, you should get out more…or get a girlfriend or…something.

Men Cockwell

One stop of light is quite significant. That may have given me the choice of shooting in 3200 vs 6400. It gives you more DR and less noise.. But then, a 2.8 lens is just impractical for day-to-day and travel use. I don’t mind carrying the 2.8 lens on a 16-hour wedding day, but it’s a different story when you’re carrying also a baby and a diaper bag… It’s really a tempting option.

I wonder when it’ll start shipping.

Kock Menkwell

No, one stop isn’t that significant as you might think. Not anymore, anyway.